It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Starseed theory

page: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Your external source concerns language, not alphabets or even Ogham, so I don't see why it's soooo exciting to you. How long do you suppose people have been speaking to each other?


I didnt say I was 'excited' Harte!...BUT I did say it was interesting...but then you wouldnt have read the entire article, unless of course you can access it? But, I thought you were "too cheap to subscribe for something you would only use a couple of times a year"? (Your own remark)


Your sources not only fail to place Druids in ancient times, they don't even attempt to integrate the Druids into Celtic society, which was Byrd's point, I believe.


So your now taking Byrd's point and running with it? Well thanks Harte for your imput, but I did notice that you only picked out the info I posted that could support your viewpoint and disregarded the rest. And of course, that is to be expected...it is getting very predictable.


Also, where did Ogham go? I thought we were talking about Ogham here.


Perhaps Ogham being that it is just an alphabet, doesnt fit into any kind of linguistics discussion?..funny though, when I read articles on ogham, it was catergorised academically under linguistics....? Perhaps it is another error on behalf of the academic institutions who have simply filed it incorrectly?

Your retort is pedantism at its best...or worst.




posted on May, 13 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777

Originally posted by Harte

The above was not written by Sir Edward Sullivan in the book of Kells (in which he provided some commentary content in a 19th century reproduction of.)


hmm fancy that...the fact that the citation clearly states info for the article came from Sir Tripe??? so perhaps, I need to contact the powers that be and tell them the reference source is wrong...according to Harte? Hmm guess you know more than ExpandedAcademic... huh?

I only assert that I know more about how to read a reference list than you do, apparently anyway.
In fact, Nat, you should know better than to comment on the source of an article you excerpt from without putting that source in your excerpt. Your comment about "Sir Tripe" looks completely meaningless, considering "Sir E Sullivan" is not mentioned in the excerpt you pasted in.
For the record, here is the listed references from the "North American Ogham..." story from the Prarie Garden (Annual:2006)

Resources:
Glass-Koentop, P. 1991. Year of Moons, Season of Trees: Mysteries & Rites of Celtic Tree Magic. Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul, MN.
Illustrations from The Book of Kells depict beautiful representations of Celtic art.
From Sullivan, Sir E. 1988. The Book of Kells. London Bracken Books.


Obviously, since the Book of Kells is well known for it's beautiful illustrations, it is the Book of Kells, the edition with annotations by Sir Edward Sullivan, that is the source for what the Prarie Garden calls "beautiful representations of Celtic art" which (apparently) appear in the story. This story, BTW, can be had for merely registering at the site I linked. At any rate, it says right there in that reference list that the illustrations are from the Book of Kells. Sir Edward had absolutely nothing at all to do with the fraudulent claims that have been made concerning Ogham being found in North America.
I linked all this in a previous post. Where are your links?

Harte



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777

Originally posted by Harte

Your external source concerns language, not alphabets or even Ogham, so I don't see why it's soooo exciting to you. How long do you suppose people have been speaking to each other?


I didnt say I was 'excited' Harte!...BUT I did say it was interesting...but then you wouldnt have read the entire article, unless of course you can access it? But, I thought you were "too cheap to subscribe for something you would only use a couple of times a year"? (Your own remark)

Actually, it was "cheapo"

You're right, though. I couldn't read it. I actually depended on you to quote the pertinent info from it. Are you saying you didn't?

Pardon me, I guess I misread you when you said:

Originally posted by NJE777I am wide eyed and bushy tailed at the mo...just gobsmacked really...

Somehow I thought you meant you were excited.


Originally posted by NJE777

Your sources not only fail to place Druids in ancient times, they don't even attempt to integrate the Druids into Celtic society, which was Byrd's point, I believe.

So your now taking Byrd's point and running with it? Well thanks Harte for your imput,

Byrd had a good point, Nat. You were gushing about Ceasars descriptions of the Druids:

Later in Book VI, he finally describes the Druids. (Caesar that is) Now from this article, it actually states Druids were on the defensive even before the Roman period and refused to commit to the main body of their doctrine in writing.

Ceasar never mentions the Druids. He's talking about the Gauls, some of whom are Celts. Nothing about Druids. Byrd pointed this out and now there's an entire page of diatribes against Byrd for making this very important point - Caesar tells us nothing at all about the Druids.


Originally posted by NJE777but I did notice that you only picked out the info I posted that could support your viewpoint and disregarded the rest. And of course, that is to be expected...it is getting very predictable.

I disregarded:

a story about New Age "Druids" in Austria,

a commentary about how the Druids, though nobody really knows what they were like, were ultimately "yok(ed)..with the Bards and Ovates" and thus "...transformed from malevolent figures into poet-priests, peacemakers, and seekers of wisdom, worthy of emulation." due to what the author basically chalks up to a warped British sense of Nationalism,

a story about some Viking use of Ogham in Ireland - which occured in the Common Era, right up there with all the other Ogham we find in Europe (even newer than some.)

So, I didn't "disregard" any of this, I just didn't address it. I considered it amusing, even interesting, but it had no bearing at all on the point I was trying to make - that point being that a date of 3200 BC for the first appearance of Celtic in Ireland says absolutely nothing about the age of Ogham. The article is about the spoken language, and not any alphabet or script.


Originally posted by NJE777

Also, where did Ogham go? I thought we were talking about Ogham here.

Perhaps Ogham being that it is just an alphabet, doesnt fit into any kind of linguistics discussion?..funny though, when I read articles on ogham, it was catergorised academically under linguistics....? Perhaps it is another error on behalf of the academic institutions who have simply filed it incorrectly?

Spanish also "fits into a linguistics discussion." Why aren't we talking about Spanish, then?
How about Mandarin, maybe?

I thought the topic was Ogham. Your source concerns spoken Celtic. Are you under the mistaken impression (not unlike your assertion that Caesar informed us on the Druids) that these are the same thing?


Originally posted by NJE777Your retort is pedantism at its best...or worst.

I think not. I merely pointed out that your source reported nothing worth getting excited over.
However, I believe that your response was just pouting because you were miffed at being shown who Sir Edward Sullivan actually was, and at having been shown the bankruptcy of the "North American Ogham" source you tried to foist upon an unsuspecting discussion board, without even attempting to verify the references therein.

I already gave you all you need to uncover the truth about the "North American Ogham" story, and the unscrupulous characters behind it. Now you try to use some New Age reference about this very subject? I'll point that out every single time it happens.

Harte

[edit on 5/13/2006 by Harte]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Hey Nat, an article which i had read and am now having difficulty finding again states,


the description of Atlantean Government resembles Celtic rule in Gaul and Britain


I am desperately trying to find the source again.

This also from sacred-texts, not sure how reliable this site is but i found the article interesting


In his lecture M. Termier presents geologic, geographic, and zoologic data in substantiation of the Atlantis theory. Figuratively draining the entire bed of the Atlantic Ocean, he considers the inequalities of its basin and cites locations on a line from the Azores to Iceland where dredging has brought lava to the surface from a depth of 3,000 meters. The volcanic nature of the islands now existing in the Atlantic Ocean corroborates Plato's statement that the Atlantean continent was destroyed by volcanic cataclysms. M. Termier also advances the conclusions of a young French zoologist, M. Louis Germain, who admitted the existence of an Atlantic continent connected with the Iberian Peninsula and with Mauritania and prolonged toward the south so as to include some regions of desert climate. M. Termier concludes his lecture with a graphic picture of the engulfment of that continent.


www.sacred-texts.com...


When an oak died, the Druids stripped off its bark, &c., shaped it reverently into the form of a pillar, a pyramid, or a cross, and still continued to worship it as an emblem of their God.


www.sacred-texts.com...


The mythologies of many nations contain accounts of gods who "came out of the sea." Certain shamans among the American Indians tell of holy men dressed in birds' feathers and wampum who rose out of the blue waters and instructed them in the arts and crafts. Among the legends of the Chaldeans is that of Oannes, a partly amphibious creature who came out of the sea and taught the savage peoples along the shore to read and write, till the soil, cultivate herbs for healing, study the stars, establish rational forms of government, and become conversant with the sacred Mysteries. Among the Mayas, Quetzalcoatl, the Savior-God (whom some Christian scholars believe to have been St. Thomas), issued from the waters and, after instructing the people in the essentials of civilization, rode out to sea on a magic raft of serpents to escape the wrath of the fierce god of the Fiery Mirror, Tezcatlipoca.
May it not have been that these demigods of a fabulous age who, Esdras-like, came out of the sea were Atlantean priests? All that primitive man remembered of the Atlanteans was the glory of their golden ornaments, the transcendency of their wisdom, and the sanctity of their symbols--the cross and the serpent. That they came in ships was soon forgotten, for untutored minds considered even boats as supernatural. Wherever the Atlanteans proselyted they erected pyramids and temples patterned after the great sanctuary in the City of the Golden Gates. Such is the origin of the pyramids of Egypt, Mexico, and Central America. The mounds in Normandy and Britain, as well as those of the American Indians, are remnants of a similar culture. In the midst of the Atlantean program of world colonization and conversion, the cataclysms which sank Atlantis began. The Initiate-Priests of the Sacred Feather who promised to come back to their missionary settlements never returned; and after the lapse of centuries tradition preserved only a fantastic account of gods who came from a place where the sea now is.


www.sacred-texts.com...

The cross and pyramid shapes also seems to have some relevance here. These were also sacred shapes to the druids.

I am trying to find some more information on Pierre Termier. The Smithsonian annual report this lecture was in isnt available on line unfortunately. It does date from 1915. Though there is this article that argues against his hypothesis.

www.pubmedcentral.gov...


I'm afraid i know very little about geology so i wont comment. There may be others better qualified who can offer their expertise. Hope ive not covered something thats already been discussed.

Cheers

M4S

(edit to fix a link and add some more info)

[edit on 14/5/06 by mojo4sale]

[edit on 14/5/06 by mojo4sale]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale

When an oak died, the Druids stripped off its bark, &c., shaped it reverently into the form of a pillar, a pyramid, or a cross, and still continued to worship it as an emblem of their God.

www.sacred-texts.com...

Mojo4sale,

I often scan through the Sacred-texts website myself, but I wouldn't have the nerve to cite 19th century mysticism as reference material for the subject at hand. Nor would I reference Hall's "The Secret Teachings of All Ages" concerning Atlantis, though it certainly is fun to scan through that gigantic book. We must remember that a whole lot of stuff about the Earth has been discovered since 1960, let alone 1928.

But, hey, that's just me, right?

Here's what Sacred-Texts.com has to say about the book you quoted from above, "Mysteries of the Druids," and the other texts from the same section of the website:

Although little is actually known about the Druids, that didn't stop 18th and 19th century intellectuals from building a romantic mythology around them. This was closely associated with the rebirth of Celtic nationalism, as well as the Romantic and Gothic movements. This body of fact and speculation later became a central source of modern Wicca and Neo-Pagan belief and practice...

The Veil of Isis or Mysteries of the Druids By W. Winwood Reade [1861]....
This book is fairly typical of the mid-19th Century literature about Druidry, which had some romantic misconceptions about the Druids. For instance, we now know that the builders of Stonehenge preceded the historical Celts by many centuries.


Possibly a better source for Nat to peruse in her Druidic journey would be
The Religion of the Ancient Celts about which Sacred-Texts says:

This is an authoritative study of ancient Celtic religion, including extensive material on what is actually known about the Druids.

Not being particularly fascinated by Druids (or Celts for that matter,) I've not looked through this book. But I would note that it is fifty years younger than the text you cite, and is therefore more likely to contain real factual information on the Celtic religions.

Harte



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Thats cool Harte, like i said i was unsure of the veracity of that particular document. I must add though that they do say the best stories do contain a shred of truth, its just a matter of discovering that shred. I did find the article regarding Pierre Termier interesting, he seemed to be well credentialed enough to be lecturing at the Smithsonian, though as you pointed out it was a long time ago. I dont really share your disregard of old or mystic texts though. I recall watching a show about the death of Alexander the Great, and it wasnt until a poisons expert from New Zealand was shown some old texts, that he picked up on something that thousands before him had missed. When researching something of which little is known, as Nat is doing here, i believe it would be foolhardy to reject something just because it is dated. There have been surprises before as im sure there will be again. (Schliemann/Calvert and Troy).

Cheers
M4S

[edit on 14/5/06 by mojo4sale]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
Byrd noted


I'm getting a little confused here, because I'm interpreting this as you believe that Druids and Celts are the same thing (which isn't so.)


Hi Byrd

You've baffled me!!??

Can you elaborate on '(which isn't so.)'?


Druids are priests of the Celts. The Romans gave this name to the priests (it's not actually clear what they may have called themselves; the word has several sources and there's no clear evidence on the original title www.etymonline.com... )

They acted as lawgivers and lorekeepers but were not war chiefs.

The Celts are several GROUPS of people who speak a common language and have a commoon culture to some degree.

Let me give you a "for example", okay?

The Celts are groups of people speaking the same language. The English-speakers of the world are groups of people speaking the same language.

Over time, the culture of the Celts in Scotland developed different practices and laws and culture than the Celts in France (just as the English have different practices and laws and culture than we Texans have.) Language also varied greatly. After five hundred years or so, Celts in one area may not have been able to understand Celts from another area (we see this happen in many places, such as with the Chumash tribes of California.)

An ancient druid was sort of a combination doctor/psychologist/religious leader. Celtic tribes and tribelets had druids, chiefs, warriors, hunters, artisans, fishermen, farmers, stonecarvers, lore-singers ("bards"... but not really. "Bard" is actually a perjorative (singer of silly stuff); the lorekeepers were the fili (filidecht, I think is the correct longer spelling.) No tribe could exist if it consisted ONLY of druids (they'd all sit around doctoring and loretelling at each other and nobody would get up and build the houses or get food.)



I was thinking about Dr Bradley's response, and I am starting to wonder if the Celts had anything to do with Stonehedge and it's construction.


No. Stonehenge was old by the time the Celts crossed the English channel:
www.aboutstonehenge.info...



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale

Originally posted by Byrd

Possibly because the Gauls didn't call their priests "druids."



Toatal bs Byrd. I read somewhere that there was a Gaul druid who made a magic potion for two warriors called Asterix and Obelix. You really do need to read more authoritive literature. (just kidding in case you hadn't noticed).

Cheers
M4S


Ahh, Asterix! Love that series! An' let's not go dissin' Uderzo and Goscinny -- they really did superb research on Gaul under the Romans... lots and lots of tiny details are just absolutly right on target!

Come to think of it, now, the druid in the series, Getafix, is a pretty good representation of how we understand (and have understood for a long time) the druids functioned in Celtic societies (such as the imaginary one that Asterix and Obelix belonged to!)

The word "druid" comes from the Greek, "drus"; to know (according to several sources. Others relate it to the Irish or the Welsh) www.newadvent.org...

(that's an interesting article, the one above and makes note of some interesting conjectures)

[edit on 15-5-2006 by Byrd]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
From my seating in this discussion, I believe ogham is at least 3000-4000 Years Old, from reviewing items. I have found some indications this date could extend to 7000 years old, but from a Prime Language or Root Language. Today, we understand Ogham as a 'Celtic' language, but it has changed along with time.


It's not a language. It's an alphabet.

We write in the Roman alphabet, but the Roman alphabet is not a language.


There is Ogham in Spain dating prior to the Commonly Accepted Time for the Ogham of the Celts.
Several Photos from the Castellano region for example
www.vigoenfotos.com...
www.vigoenfotos.com...

Those are nice petroglyphs, but surely they're not what you're presenting as Ogham -- right? There's no Ogham in any of those.

Just so everyone's on the same page, here's a whopping boatload of pictures of stones with REAL ogham on them (sadly, clicking the pictures doesn't bring up the reference pages... apparently the author is or was moving his or her website) :
titus.uni-frankfurt.de...

This one is an EXCELLENT example!
www.proel.org...

Another one, very weathered (see how it's written with a straight line?)
www.hubcat.org...

One on the church windowsill here (common practice was to put it on edges) :
www.celticwestwales.com/

More here:
www.sametz.com/html/ how/articles/anticipate.shtml

Here's one from an archaeological dig (done on bone)
www.cf.ac.uk...

Drawing of real one in Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

Now that you've seen the real, here's fakes

Obviously not Ogham: cwva.org...




Here's how to read it when you find it:
www.celticgrounds.com...


I also beg to differ with you about "no graffiti on the Great Pyramid." There's lots and lots of it, left by tourists through the milennia:

www.highbeam.com...:19790759/Egypt+closes+Great+Pyramid+to+remove+graffiti,+fix+cracks.html?refid=ency_topnm



[edit on 15-5-2006 by Byrd]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I also beg to differ with you about "no graffiti on the Great Pyramid." There's lots and lots of it, left by tourists through the milennia:

www.highbeam.com...:19790759/Egypt+closes+Great+Pyramid+to+remove+graffiti,+fix+cracks.html?refid=ency_topnm

Thanks for clearing up what Ogham looks like with those links, Byrd. I just wanted to add one point to your post.

Concerning graffiti in Khufu's pyramid, The Egyptians also left graffiti there. The graffiti was left in a sealed chamber by workmen during the construction of the pyramid. It is this graffiti that basically validates the Egyptologists date for Khufu's construction of the pyramid.

But there's no Ogham.


Harte



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Byrd and Harte

Ogham, is as represented, in those pictures, but it also has other forms.

There is of course, the Wheel Ogham, you can look at in the Wiki Page for example.

en.wikipedia.org...:Wheel_ogham.png

I was also under the impression Spiral and Serpentine Ogham fit the bill, but the Dating is a problem until recently and that was what I was meaning with Dr Bradley, who has confirmed dates of migration may well have taken place prior to commonly accepted views. Construction of Stonehedge falls well within that frame of time. 3000 BC.

But those Photos offered previously are a representation of Spiral Ogham. Much akin to what is in Ireland, and elsewhere throughout Europa, yet questionable due to the dating matter which seems to be clearing up, more and more.

It was an example of the evolution of the Alphabet, I was trying to show.
(I will seperate Language from Alphabets from now on. Didn't mean to be confusing.)

BUT I was reviewing some of those Photos you (Byrd) offered and saw similiar in many sites today. The following is a closeup of one such Stone.

www1.istockphoto.com...

I understand Ogham uses lines, and the corners could be considered one as well, but I do not think some of this is anything other than quarry marks, from the chiseling of the stone. These pieces would have been Split, using some item, and these look very much like Stone Cutter marks.

Just an opinion I formed on these today, because they look like many Natural Stone, I see in Landscape Yards around my area. The Garden Stones, Large Ones that have these similiar features, and unless the Stone Cutter was a Druid, I can't imagine it being anything else but.

Certainly markings on the Flats, or through nature cracks and crevasses make sense, but these Photos just seem out of place.

Just an observation.

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Concerning graffiti in Khufu's pyramid, The Egyptians also left graffiti there. The graffiti was left in a sealed chamber by workmen during the construction of the pyramid. It is this graffiti that basically validates the Egyptologists date for Khufu's construction of the pyramid.

But there's no Ogham.


Harte


Funny Harte

But excuse me, the only markings were scribe marks in the desending passage, and they had been constrewed to be an indication of Kufu/Cheops involvement.

Those same scribe marks, when constrewed as a 'Marking' or 'Reference' Point, are the basis for the internal design based upon the Pyramid Inch, which reflects time. Time of the Construction, Time of the Exodus, Time of Christ's Birth, Time of His Death, and strangely enough, the End of Time just to cover these breifly.

Coincidence? You have your theory to believe, I have mine.

Yours, if true, makes everyone happy.


Mine, if true, shakes the pillars of the foundations of the earth.


Just a Happy Thought for the Day.

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane

Funny Harte
But excuse me, the only markings were scribe marks in the desending passage, and they had been constrewed to be an indication of Kufu/Cheops involvement.

Those same scribe marks, when constrewed as a 'Marking' or 'Reference' Point, are the basis for the internal design based upon the Pyramid Inch, which reflects time. Time of the Construction, Time of the Exodus, Time of Christ's Birth, Time of His Death, and strangely enough, the End of Time just to cover these breifly.


Shane,

Unfortunately, that turns out not to be the case:

The ceilings of the first four rooms are flat, while the fifth has a pointed ceiling. I believe that the purpose of building the five chambers was to eliminate any risk of the ceiling of the king’s chamber collapsing under the weight of the superincumbent masonry. I took Will, Leslie and Christine to see some of the ancient graffiti that read, “friends of Khufu.” This is one of the names of the crew who built Khufu’s pyramid. I also showed them the sign of life, the sign of a pyramid, and an inscription that says, “year 17 of Khufu’s reign.” The most interesting discovery here that I found was graffiti written behind one of the blocks that no one else could have written except the workmen who moved this stone.
My emphasis. Source: guardians.net...
Those ancient graffiti inscriptions are depicted at the above website.

Also:

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence we have is graffiti on ancient stone monuments in places that they didn't mean to be shown. Like on foundations when we dig down below the floor level, up in the relieving chambers above the King's chamber, and in many monuments of the Old Kingdom, temples, the Sun temples, other pyramids. Well, the graffiti gives us a picture of organization where crews, where a gang of workmen was organized into two crews. And the crews were subdivided into five phyles. The word phyles is spelled p-h-y-l-e-s. It's the Greek word for tribe. The Egyptian word is za. They were divided into five za's. In later times when the Greeks came and in bilingual inscriptions, when somebody was translating za into Greek they used the word phyles, the word for tribe, which is extremely interesting actually.

Were these militaristic kinds of conscripts? Certainly they weren't slaves. Could they actually have been natural communities of the Nile Valley kind of contributing like the way the Inca build their bridges and so on? .....So the phyles then are subdivided into divisions. And the divisions are identified by single hieroglyphs with names that mean things like endurance, perfection, strong. OK, so how do we know this -- you come to a block of stone in the relieving chambers above the Great Pyramid. And first of all you see this cartouche of a King and then some scrawls all in red paint after it. That's the gang name. And in the Old Kingdom in the time of the Pyramids of Giza, the gangs were named after kings. So for example, we have a name, compounded with the name of Menkaure, and it seems to translate 'the drunks or the drunkards of Menkaure.' There's one that's well attested, actually in the relieving chambers above the Great Pyramid, the Friends of Khufu gang, the Drunks of Menkaura gang, and then you have the green phyles and then the powerful ones. None of this sounds like slavery, does it?
My emphasis.
Source: www.pbs.org...


Originally posted by Shane...shakes the pillars of the foundations of the earth.


That's the problem with those Earth-pillars, they're darn sturdy.

Harte



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Thanks for the Notes Harte.

I've known of that as well, but passed that off as the deterimination of people of suspect intent on ensuring the claim can be made to suggest this this is Kufu/Cheops Pyramid.

But this is not what I meant by Graffitti. I see clearly I was mistaken in using this term as I did. Cartouhe, would have been an more appropriate word, but I did not have a dictionary handy, so graffitti was used. (Sorry Egyptologists, it's all graffitti to me).

But the Scribing in the Passage, I noted is actually in the Stone, not painted on by Kufu's Drinking buddy's or Hawass'es cronnies.

www.pbs.org...

This was what I had inmind Harte. What I refered to as graffitti.

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
But this is not what I meant by Graffitti. I see clearly I was mistaken in using this term as I did. Cartouhe, would have been an more appropriate word, but I did not have a dictionary handy, so graffitti was used. (Sorry Egyptologists, it's all graffitti to me).


Erm, not cartouche. Cartouche is the royal name(s) inscribed in a long oval similar to an ankh and is only used for pharonic names.


But the Scribing in the Passage, I noted is actually in the Stone, not painted on by Kufu's Drinking buddy's or Hawass'es cronnies.

I'm familiar with those, and there's no evidence that they're very ancient OR that they mean what was "channeled" as their meaning. The "pyramid inch" is simply a mark on the stone and there's no indication when it was made. Ditto the other markings. They could have been left there by tomb robbers or guides or any number of other people.

In fact, there is no evidence that they were all made at the same time or by the same people.

When Egyptians did something significant, they simply didn't make "a mark" and then sneak off. They recorded what it meant and how to interpret it -- so there should have been prayers and writings about this important symbol. It should have been referenced elsewhere as well (as the cubit is.)

Their concept of time wasn't that exact -- things a hundred years in their future were not of interest or importance in their writings. They were interested in the problems of their own time. Nowhere do they express any interest in events that were to take place thousands of years in the future.

So, interpreting three scribe marks (of unknown date and time) on three stones is some pretty wild conjecture.

Furthermore, in order to make the system "work", you have to adjust the time period that it refers to as you go along (the theory doesn't mark equal divisions in time.) And there's no master statement saying "and this shall be a measure for (time period.)"

It's certainly not Atlantean in origin, either, since there's no records of those marks in association with other languages or a Mysterious Unknown Language that shows up. They aren't used in other monuments, and there are no tools showing those lengths on them.

So "sacred pyramid codes" for the marks are less likely than "architect's marks to show Ptah-Djoe-Ptsixpack where to stop doing this and start doing that" or priestly marks to show Atem-Michael-Djangelo where to paint or carve certian inscriptions for the finished tomb (which wasn't finished) or Aten-Agent-Q where to place certain deadfalls and traps in the passageway after they were finished.

Until better explainations are found, the one that I just made up is every bit as likely as Prophetic Pyramid Inches.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
There is of course, the Wheel Ogham, you can look at in the Wiki Page for example.
en.wikipedia.org...:Wheel_ogham.png


The decorative forms of Ogham developed after the original line and dot alphabet. They never show up in the earliest written examples, and they're always on paper (they're confusing to read because they're a decorative script.) They were never used in boundary markers (which is where most Ogham is found.)


I was also under the impression Spiral and Serpentine Ogham fit the bill

I've never heard of these types of ogham and can't seem to find them on the web. Can you give me a link or example?


but the Dating is a problem until recently and that was what I was meaning with Dr Bradley, who has confirmed dates of migration may well have taken place prior to commonly accepted views. Construction of Stonehedge falls well within that frame of time. 3000 BC.


He hasn't provided much evidence for his theory beyond linking some things he finds personally significant. Nor has there been much external evidence for his views (no one else has found anything that would support his theory.


But those Photos offered previously are a representation of Spiral Ogham.


I'd debate that. They may be declared Ogham by someone who wants to find ancient Ogham -- but what you need for it to be real is to have a consistant pattern that develops over time and/or local knowledge of the meaning (writing is also linear, and even the undecipherable scripts (there ARE genuine Mystery Scripts) are linear.)

Example... I have the Patterson book, ROCK ART SYMBOLS OF THE GREATER SOUTHWEST. In it, he has depictions of symbols found on rock art. He also has the interpretation based on original records (white men who came in and asked the tribes about the symbols) and dates when the information was collected as well a locations and tribes. So, under "dots" I find that among the tribes near the Huichol (who still continue the traditional art) it meant grains of corn (maise), stars, raindrops, bean seeds, or gourd seeds -- depending on other contexts. Some examples from Chumash art show it associated with dream/trance (figures outlined in the dots.) In several southwest examples, the dots enclose animals in a "corral."

These meanings were derived from a large number of pictographs, petroglyphs, and objects, they're grouped culturally and by time and location. I don't see evidence that Bradley has done this (in fact, I think he ignores nearby art that doesn't fit the "ogham" interpretation) -- only that he's cherry-picked examples.

You can't consider just a single piece of evidence. You have to consider everything!

So, there's no support for this as being global remnants of another language (if you were here, you could look at my books on the various depictions of Tlaloc, the rain god, here in America. From the oldest to the youngest depictions, there's about a 5,000 year span in the imaages. You can see design progression and other forms of symbolic references that confirm the designs are associated wth Tlaloc (as well as examine the changes in naming and powers that happened as people went to different areas.)

Tlaloc is an excellent deity/design to study when you look at how ideas travel in a pre-literate society and how they grow and change over time. But, when people know how to write, the symbols of the deity stay more constant across time and the culture (example: the Egyptian gods Hathor and Horus and Bast (three of the oldest).)

We don't see a unified deity and associated symbols being transmitted in the areas where Bradley claims to find Ogham. We don't find the same pattern repeated exactly in other areas (one spiral and six dots do not necessarily equal two spirals and 24 dots.)

So there's no consistant pattern (globally or locally) that would indicate a culture with one language and a form of writing (Ogham) existed and left global traces before 400 AD or thereabouts. Hence, it's not "Atlantean."



It was an example of the evolution of the Alphabet, I was trying to show.
(I will seperate Language from Alphabets from now on. Didn't mean to be confusing.)


(g) It would help! Remember, we can have language with alphabets, but alphabets without a language isn't sensible.


I understand Ogham uses lines, and the corners could be considered one as well, but I do not think some of this is anything other than quarry marks, from the chiseling of the stone. These pieces would have been Split, using some item, and these look very much like Stone Cutter marks.


They do, don't they! It's a good observation. However, they're not stonecutter marks -- stonecutters don't group marks into sequences that are one inch or so apart. If you put your cutting pegs THAT close, you'd get only that section of rock split off. And there's no way you could sit 80 stonemasons together that closely so they could all hammer on a piece of rock at the same time.

Then there's workmanship to consider. On public monuments and markers they don't leave the rough marks but smooth over them. The photos show only an edge -- if you went up to the stone and examined it, you'd get a better idea of why it's Ogham. The marks are grouped, and they continue in a long sequence.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Shane
But this is not what I meant by Graffitti. I see clearly I was mistaken in using this term as I did. Cartouhe, would have been an more appropriate word, but I did not have a dictionary handy, so graffitti was used. (Sorry Egyptologists, it's all graffitti to me).


Erm, not cartouche. Cartouche is the royal name(s) inscribed in a long oval similar to an ankh and is only used for pharonic names.


Please allow me to add one tidbit here.

The "cartouche" is how the Egyptians wrote the names of their Pharoahs. The heiroglyphs for the King's name are surrounded by an oval border, flat on the two long sides and rounded at the ends. To Napoleon's men, these symbols stood out in the texts they (basically) were robbing from Egypt (that was when the Rosetta stone was discovered). Nobody even knew at that time whether or not heiroglyphics even made up any sort of an alphabet. Anyway, the royal names stood out from the rest of the markings because of the oval borders. The French military men thought these symbols looked somewhat like their rifle cartridges, so they called them "cartouches" - French for "cartridge."

Harte



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I'm familiar with those, and there's no evidence that they're very ancient OR that they mean what was "channeled" as their meaning.


Is everything Channeled Byrd????


You just take a measuring tape, and can calculate this. But alas....since your coming around, I will not look at this minor fault in specific. But you have come someway from earlier discussions.



When Egyptians did something significant, they simply didn't make "a mark" and then sneak off. They recorded what it meant and how to interpret it


Much like Kufu's drunken Chain Gang/Hawass's relatives did. Those Sneeky buggers.



Their concept of time wasn't that exact -- things a hundred years in their future were not of interest or importance in their writings. They were interested in the problems of their own time. Nowhere do they express any interest in events that were to take place thousands of years in the future.


Aside from what you are suggesting, I do believe they had a firm grip on Time. Better than most in those days. Thanks to Thoth.



So, interpreting three scribe marks (of unknown date and time) on three stones is some pretty wild conjecture.


Do we wish to go there???



It's certainly not Atlantean in origin, either, since there's no records of those marks in association with other languages or a Mysterious Unknown Language that shows up. They aren't used in other monuments, and there are no tools showing those lengths on them.


And this has been my point constantly my friend. The Great Pyramid is Unique, and not something like the others. You have finally printed this premise yourself, and I am pleased to see these steps you are taking. It is encouraging.

Atlantian, maybe your right, but at least we have now taken it from the missconception of being Cheops or Kufu's. Someone elses I can certainly agree with.



Until better explainations are found, the one that I just made up is every bit as likely as Prophetic Pyramid Inches.


Likewise, until someone offers a sensible explaination of the Great Pyramid, we can both speculate, or better yet, findout what took place ourselves.


Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

The corner stone of the Starseed Theory is extraterrestrial travelers that have died off or left long ago. Originally there were three that came to Earth. It is implied also that this was a breeding set. Also that the aliens use trianary sexual reproduction. That means a male, female, and one that is both. The trick here is that the one considered to be 'both' would also be 'neither'. The idea is that one set came to Earth and inter-bread with humans. It has never been totally explained how they got here. It is stated that they can move between worlds via astral projective travel. It is also mentioned that one went mad. The claim is further that this one haunts, for lack of a better term, the astral. The first thing that strikes me about this theory is the amount of science fiction that involves a triple sex race. The thought of this type of reproduction is rather popular amongst those writers that enjoy writing something difficult. The next part that is questionable about this is the biology involved. With a creature requiring three genders for reproduction it is likely that all three parts would be necessary for that reproduction to take place. The most likely way this would occur, taking the descriptions into account, is this: The mid would collect sperm from the male to start. After this there are two options. One way would be the mid then collects the egg from the female and caries to term. The other option is the sperm is only carrying half the DNA, or equivalent, that it would in most life on this planet. This would leave it to the mid to complete that portion of sequence. The main point is that it would be extremely unlikely that cross breeding with humans would be possible. Add to this the fact that cross breeding involving humans was attempted by the Nazi scientists before and during World War II. While not performed ethically correct in any sense of the word, it was proven that apes and humans could impregnate each other. The end result was never a live organism past one week, if it was carried to term at all. Life from another world is likely to be even more dissimilar than primates from here on Earth. This is mostly due to the fact that conditions on another planet are going in one way or another. The size and randomness of the visible universe makes this known.


That's what I found from here. Unfortunately, that's about all I could find.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte


Originally posted by NJE777Nothing conclusive has been brought forward that proves absolutely that ogham alphabet is not ancient or that the Druids did not have the knowledge of the golden age.


Nat, this is a vacant argument, and you know it.


Hi Harte

I don't think this is a vacant argument. Can you demonstrate to me why you think it is vacant? Oh, and furthermore, can you also absolutely demonstrate to me why you feel I know it is a vacant argument?

Nat
edit=obsessive compulsive formatting. Needed to insert space between 'italics'... that is pathetic...but ..... um


[edit on 25-5-2006 by NJE777]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join